There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Brian2]

You overlook the modern psychological explorations of religion, as for instance an aspect of the human instinctive creation of a tentative narrative to accommodate a surprising or threatening event. When you don't know about electricity but you know about thunder and lightning, you may well end up with a superbeing who creates thunder and lightning, because that answers the question, 'Why is it so?' and in its place and time makes more sense than the alternatives, given that many people find 'I don't know' is an unsatisfying explanation even to this day.

The psychology of the God of the gaps. It doesn't sound like it explains the Bible however.

There is no evidence that such things are real, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You say, God is real, I say, Then show me ─ but you can't, nor can anyone else.

You say show me but don't show me the evidence that you have to accept by faith because that is not real evidence and that needs to be shown to be true.
You want to believe the materialistic worldview by faith but refuse the evidence for faith in the non materialistic worldview.

But your argument is that this particular assertion is a truth about reality that can be arrived at through no examinable evidence whatsoever.

So again I reply, Show me.

My argument is that I have faith in God and your argument is that you don't have faith in God and that you don't want to have faith in God.

I respectfully suggest that's nonsense and that your definition of what is real is entirely inadequate. I think it's important in this conversation that you can state clearly your test to determine whether X has objective reality, failing which it exists only as a concept / thing imagined.

For you it remains as a thing imagined.

 

[Brian2]

I think your speculations range between sloppy thinking and incoherent.

As for instance:

Very sloppy thinking, or intentionally deceptive.
Don't really care which. Either way, your assumptions are rejected.

I suppose that means you have speculations about the origins of the universe that are neither that it was created or that it was not created.

 

[shunyadragon]

Is it? Aren't all accepted scientific findings only likely true? I cannot think of anyone that would rate as "absolutely" true.
What am I missing? I suspect you are straining at a gnat.

'true absolutely true??" No science doe not deals with true, absolutely true or likely true. The knowledge of our physical existence increases with the falsification of theories, and hypotheses by objective verifiable evidence.

Again, the problem with the vague statement from the previous post:

"Do you agree that we should reject the proposition of the existence of X until it has been demonstrated to be true or likely true?"

'Science ONLY falsifies theories and hypotheses based on objectively verifiable evidence. Science does not reject or accept propositions(?) concerning anything else.

Neither this, nor anything that comes after, tells me what you think a universal god is. Enumerating the gods of religions that you do not think have a universal god will never elucidate your position.

My position is provided as worded. It appears English comprehension is your problem,

I would disagree. The Baha'i still declare absolutes.

The only absolute in Baha'i teaching is the existence of an unknowable God, the Creator of all of existence.

 

[ratiocinator]

It doesn't sound like it explains the Bible however.

What needs explaining? The bible is obviously written by fallible people with limited understanding.

My argument is that I have faith in God and your argument is that you don't have faith in God...

What is the value of faith (belief without evidence)? Nobody needs any faith to reject a proposition for which no good reason has been given to accept it. It's just basic rationality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

What is the value of faith (belief without evidence)? Nobody needs any faith to reject a proposition for which no good reason has been given to accept it. It's just basic rationality.

How do you observe value to you with only external sensory experince? How do you observe a good reason as good with only external sensory experince?

As relgious, but not a theist, I just give good reasons for how I cope as subjective and as long as I keep them subjective, you can only counter if you can give objective good reasons for coping that is based on external sensory experinces as per evidence. Good luck with that one.
BTW it is the same as this site for the page of the limit of science:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[Brian2]

This was in response to, "What I said was, "The explanation works just fine without inserting god into it." If you think that the explanations require gods intervention, then it's on you to show that. It's not on everyone else to just believe that until it's shown to be false."

Right. So we don't insert universe-vomiting tortoises into our explanations of the workings of the universe. Why? Because our explanations work just fine without the assumption Our scientific explanations make sense, without having to assume the existence of universe-creating gods that nobody has shown to exist in the first place. Just like universe-vomiting tortoises. I mean, they could exist, just like anything else our minds can think up could exist, but nobody has shown that they actually do exist.

You don't seem to realize that your assumption that god exists comes with all kinds of baggage and other assumptions attached to it. And they are a whole bunch of assumptions that you have not demonstrated. You're not just claiming that "some" god exists - you're claiming that a very specific god exists. A god that comes with a lot of other assumptions that are not in evidence. Like the existence of spirits, which you also claim without any evidence. You even claim that spirits are undetectable while at the same time claiming that you've somehow detected them. Which makes no sense.

You seem happy with thinking that through science you will find the answers.
I'm just pointing out that science has assumptions and limitations and may not be right and doesn't say that there is no God anyway................................. and that there is other evidence for God than what science can use.
But maybe you know all these things and don't care anyway,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, except to try to show that science,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which you say does not show anything,,,,,,,,,,,,, is going to show you if God exists or not and if it doesn't then God remains something in my imagination, because only evidence that science can use is acceptable.
OK so be happy with your belief, worldview, and I'll be happy with mine.

You need to show that god exists if you are claiming that god created the universe.

If I was making a scientific hypothesis then that would be the case. But I'm not.

Just in this paragraph alone, you assume a god exists, and that this god is a "he." How do you know that?
And now you seem to be arguing in favour of some sort of deistic god that set everything into motion at the start of the universe and then just sat back and let it unfold. In other words, you're all over the place trying to justify your faith in this god.

I don't need to justify my faith to you.

My belief is based on the evidence that our explanations of the universe work just fine without having to assume the existence of god(s). It's the same amount of "faith" required to not belief that fairies created the universe. Or universe-vomiting tortoises.

Do you think it takes faith to say "I lack belief in the claim that universe-vomiting tortoises brought the universe into existence. Do you have some evidence that universe-vomiting tortoises exist?"

You have no evidence that scientific explanations of how the universe and life came to be are true.

No. I say, "I don't know how the universe came to be."

I know that. But you do seem to be saying that God did not do it.
If not, then great.

This was in response to, "You've tried this one already and I already pointed out that I've used those as examples to help illustrate my point. I actually took the universe-vomiting tortoise from a Stephen King novel. Why don't you consider universe-vomiting tortoises? Why don't you consider the great juju at the bottom of the sea? They are just as likely as any other creationism claim out there. Instead of assuming I'm trying to mock and offend you, why not consider that other people have, and do, believe all kinds of claims about how the universe got here? You're so sure yours is the right one ... why? You can't seem to present any evidence for it."

Can you explain how this is a response to that?

Not if you can't see how it is a response.

Expecting science to do what it has always done, which has helped us understand the world around us in an independently demonstrable and verifiable way is not a faith belief, because science has shown itself to be a reliable methodology.

Again here, you claim that existence of undetectable "spirits" while not being able to provide any demonstration of their existence. While claiming to be able to detect spirits. You are making a very bizarre claim here and you don't seem to realize it.

You trust in the assumptions and work of science with things that God has not said that He did and where science has found answers that have been shown to be correct. SO you keep trusting the assumptions and work of science when it comes to things that God has said that He did and where you know science is not going to say "God did it".
And yet I suppose you would make a big deal if I said that you believe that God does not exist.

 

[Brian2]

Not in the ones claimed to be prophecy in the Bible. I don't think something "coming true" like, a thousand years after someone allegedly foretold it is a particularly good prophecy either. Plus, you have to ignore all the failed prophecies, which itself is a problem.

Are you saying that it would be a better prophecy if it came true that same year or what?

I have not ignored prophecies but I don't know which failed prophecies you are referring to.

 

[Brian2]

How did you find out?

I found out through believing the Bible.

 

[Brian2]

I believe scientists are justified to reach the conclusion 'to refuse to see any evidence for God, which would not be confirmation bias. I am a Theist and scientist and 'do not see any evidence for God whatsoever..

I am talking about my own subjective evidence for God, not any evidence for God that science can verify or falsify.

 

[Brian2]

Since there is no science behind the claim that God or gods exist, we are therefore dealing with a persistent fantasy claim.

There is no science behind the claim that God or gods do not exist. Are we therefore dealing with a persistent fantasy claim.

 

[Brian2]

In my experience, diehard skeptics won't believe in the supernatural or believe anyone else who talks about their experiences with the supernatural until they have had a personal experience with something supernatural that they can't rationally explain and logically debunk (as I explained in another thread here). In other words, you can talk to them or argue with them until you're blue in the face about the supernatural, but they won't believe you because they haven't personally witnessed anything themselves. Having had years of personal experience myself, I've come to believe in the adage "seeing is believing" when it concerns diehard skeptics believing in supernatural phenomena. However, I also believe that some supernatural phenomena occur in the physical world that neither modern science nor sacred religious texts (such as the Bible) or any religious dogma can rationally explain or logically refute.

Yes supernatural phenomena happen and skeptics won't believe until it happens to them and even then it is not objective so it depends how diehard they are.
I suppose I am continuing on with the discussions just because it takes 2 to tango. Just when I think that what I am saying about subjective evidence is understood and the whole thing will stop, I say something that stirs the pot too much and half a dozen other skeptics join in. Sigh. I should just stop I guess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I found out through believing the Bible.

And that sounds exactly like confirmation bias.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no science behind the claim that God or gods do not exist. Are we therefore dealing with a persistent fantasy claim.

No, that is not how it works. For rational thought one does not believe until sufficient evidence exist to support one's beliefs. Your argument denigrates God since it can be applied to the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause and God.

 

[ppp]

I suppose that means you have speculations about the origins of the universe that are neither that it was created or that it was not created.

You have the right any old sloppy supposition that you can spawn. I cannot stop you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, that is not how it works. For rational thought one does not believe until sufficient evidence exist to support one's beliefs. Your argument denigrates God since it can be applied to the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause and God.

So everything you do and claim are based on sufficient evidence.
And that I suppose include this, which science can't do:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[Brian2]

No, that is not how it works. For rational thought one does not believe until sufficient evidence exist to support one's beliefs. Your argument denigrates God since it can be applied to the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause and God.

We all usually stop believing childish fantasies as we grow older. When it comes to God, adults start believing in God as adults. Have they sufficient evidence do you think? Have they decided that rational thought can only take us so far and that it requires the leap of faith, the jumping off the rational "I don't know" fence onto the belief in God side.
(Instead of claiming rational thought and claiming sitting on the fence contempleting with my head in my hand,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, while at the same time throwing stones at those who have jumped into the believer's side of the fence.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

So everything you do and claim are based on sufficient evidence.
And that I suppose include this, which science can't do:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

I never claimed that. But one should be able to understand when one is reacting irrationally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We all usually stop believing childish fantasies as we grow older. When it comes to God, adults start believing in God as adults. Have they sufficient evidence do you think? Have they decided that rational thought can only take us so far and that it requires the leap of faith, the jumping off the rational "I don't know" fence onto the belief in God side.
(Instead of claiming rational thought and claiming sitting on the fence contempleting with my head in my hand,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, while at the same time throwing stones at those who have jumped into the believer's side of the fence.)

So God is just an adult fantasy. How does that make it any better?

If you can justify your beliefs then it is more than a fantasy. A fantasy as an adult may help you cope. They are not all bad. But one needs to remember that when trying to force others to go by your morals that they may be based upon a fantasy. The problem with many religious beliefs is that they are at least partially based on evil beliefs that arose from tribalism. If one is a Christian and can see the many flaws of the Bible and one does not try to apply the evil beliefs from the Bible upon others I have no problem with the religion. Christianity is not all bad. But for those that try to think that their morals are the only right ones and tries to force others to follow them, then we have a problem.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I never claimed that. But one should be able to understand when one is reacting irrationally.

Yeah, but the problem is that even evidence for a non-relgious person like you have a limit. So since I in effect learned this game from your kind, I also learned when I use faith not to claim evidence. The joke is that for the everyday world it is a fact that I can do that in a limited sense. But that is not different than that evidence, objectivity and rationality is limited.
At least some of our resident theists don't get that and what to have both faith and evidence as the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, but the problem is that even evidence for a non-relgious person like you have a limit. So since I in effect learned this game from your kind, I also learned when I use faith not to claim evidence. The joke is that for the everyday world it is a fact that I can do that in a limited sense. But that is not different than that evidence, objectivity and rationality is limited.
At least some of our resident theists don't get that and what to have both faith and evidence as the same.

There is a general good philosophy to apply. If one can show one's beliefs to be rational then it is justifiable to apply them to try to apply them to others. For example "Murder is bad". I don't want to be murdered. I do not know of anyone that wants to be murdered. So preventing murder is a good thing. But if it comes to how to eat food properly, many of those actions can be more from the behaviors of a region than anything else. So I will not try to force a person to eat Chinese food with chopsticks, even if that is de rigueur in much of Asia.